October 5, 2012

He didn't have an answering machine on his phone. He was late for William Rehnquist's funeral because they couldn't leave a message and find out where he was. He doesn't like electric lights to read. He moves his chair around his office over the course of the day for the sunlight. But the great thing about Justice Souter is that he sort of got the joke about being a Supreme Court Justice and he understood that he was important but it wasn't all about him.

Which might explain his graceful retirement. I sometimes wonder about those Justices who hang on for decades and into extreme old age. Why don't they think there should be more rotation of new individuals into those chambers?

24 comments:

I sometimes wonder about those Justices who hang on for decades and into extreme old age. Why don't they think there should be more rotation of new individuals into those chambers?

It couldn't possibly have anything to do with the desire to impose their will for as long they have a will, so I suspect it has to do with the 'appointed for life' thing and an acknowledgement of your own mortality.

@rehajm But these are not ordinary people. These are the people whose judgment and wisdom is imposed on all of us. I think Souter serves as a model of judicial humility. It's not enough to understand their humanity, their psychology, their motivations. We should demand more.

Isn't a universal thing, even a truism, that at all times we consider our judgment to be damned near infallible?

Let's take a specific topic, capital punishment. Over time, my opinion on this subject has changed.

At one point, I was wrong; I'm not sure if I was wrong before, or if I'm wrong now. But at each time, I was sure I was right. I attribute my changed attitude now to new experiences coloring my opinion, experiences I hadn't yet had then.

If I had thought I was wrong at either time, I'd change my opinion. It's the definition of opinion.

And so as I age, and my brain deteriorates, I'll continue to think I'm right, even if I become quite addle-minded. I'll just attribute changes in attitude to "mellowing with age" or something.

And so I'm sure that's why Ginsburg, for example, hangs on. She's confident that she's right about every issue, and any replacement might disagree with her on some small fraction of cases. She considers hanging on to be the right thing to do, so that cases aren't decided wrong.

Jeffery Toobin, personable, likable, but one of many in the massive herd who got the OJ trial completely wrong. And I've wondered, how could he not see what was so clearly coming? I mean, he seemed so rational, believable, right. But I knew he was wrong right from the start.

Simply because you can't sell an aggressive wash'n'wear white woman (Marcia Clark) to a black jury. Even after her comb-out, not even John F. Kennedy himself could've swayed those jurors.

It's one thing to make a mistake in judgment, but quite another when that judgment is predicated on your entire professional existence. Like mechanic mistaking a Volkswagen for a Cadillac, or a doctor a heart for a liver. Which means your in the wrong business.

Take Justice Souter, who finally figured out that he had to physically sit on his homestead to protect it against Eminent Domain. A little quirk in the law, not directly related to KELO. So while Mr. Souter may like to follow the sun around the house, the affable Mr. Toobin doesn't have a clue.

I also wonder why the SCOTUS judges do not retire at certain age. I would think that 70-75 would be good age to retire them. I would do the same for Congess members of both houses, and also limit the terms of service, whichever comes first. Power corrupts.

I believe this idea is workable from the state level up. I'm not a lawyer, but I think that local motions to limit the age, or total, term of the local representatives and judges can take care of this, no.

I sometimes wonder about those Justices who hang on for decades and into extreme old age. Why don't they think there should be more rotation of new individuals into those chambers?

Because of the gross politicization of the Court (and the law in general), most especially since Roe v. Wade. This includes both those clinging on to power with lustful zeal, as well as those who would like to retire, but feel obligated to try to stop the former. Prior to Douglas and Brennan, most justices were content to serve for a while and then return to private life, rather than digging their nails into the bench.

Souter was a joke played by George Bush on all the conservatives who voted for him. As befits a President who flip flopped on abortion, Bush didn't care about that "Silly social issues crap" and left orders that he didn't want to fight Senate Democrats on SCOUTS nominations. Once Sen. Rodman vouched that Souter would sail trough - Bush signed off.